O R D E R R.Vijayakumar, Member. The complaint is filed seeking compensation Rs.15000/- for mental torture sustained by the complainant. The complainant’s case is that even though he was promptly repaying the installments of loan availed by him from the opposite parties, the opposite parties unnecessarily harassing him by sending notices repeatedly alleging that he is a defaulter. The loan amount availed by the complainant is Rs.5, 00,000/- and Rs.240/- monthly installments of Rs.5350 were fixed for repayment. The complainant was remitting installments promptly. But he was served with a notice according to which the loan account is defaulted by Rs.4869. The print out given to the complainant on enquiry also indicated the defaulted (2) sum. When the complainant raised the possibility of wrong input to the computer, the manager straightly by refused to analyse the complaint. Bank is repeatedly sending notices. Hence the complaint is filed seeking justice and compensation for mental agony. The opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. The complainant had availed two loans from the opposite party. One trade Loan for Rs.1,00,000/- and one Housing Loan for Rs.5,00,000/- .The trade loan is categorized as NPA. Even though the housing loan was regular since the trade loan become NPA technically speaking the housing loan also be classified as NPA only, as per asset clarification / prudential norms of accounting. The complainant had sufficient opportunity for taking appropriate steps to cure the defaults committed by him. The opposite party has every right to resort to sending notices, recovery notices and other steps as a part of recovery measures as per the terms and agreements executed by the complainant. Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. The complainant filed affidavit PW1 examined. Exhibits P1 and P2 marked. From the side of opposite parties DW1 examined. Exhibits D1 and D2 marked. The points of determination are:- - Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite
party. - Relief and cost.
(3) Points (1) and (2) The opposite party pointed out in the version that the complainant had availed two loans – one trade loan and one house loan. Even though the complainant had suppressed in the complaint and affidavit, the fact that he had availed a trade loan, he had admitted in cross-examination that he had availed a trade loan also and he is a defaulter in repayment of that loan. The opposite party has admitted that regular payments made in housing loan installments. As the trade loan became NPA technically speaking the housing loan also be classified as NPA as per asset classification / Prudential norms of accounting. The defaulter in one account would become a defaulter in his other account, also even if it is regularly and promptly repaid. Based on the Assets classification / Prudential norms of accounting, the opposite parties sent a notice against housing loan also. We have perused the documents in detail. Exhibit D2, is the circular issued by the Commercial Manager, Syndicate Bank organization and Methods Division, related to prudential norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification, provisioning and compilation of year End returns based on the RBI Master Circular DBOD No.BP.BC.12/21.4.048/2007- 2008 dated July 2,2007. In clause 2.5.2. Page No.13 of of Exhibit D2 stated that “it is difficult to envisage a situation where only one facility to a borrower / One investment in any of the securities issued by the borrower becomes a problem credit / investment and not others. Therefore all facilities granted by the bank to a borrower and investment in all securities issued by the borrower (4) will have to be treated as NPA/NP1 and not the particular facility / investment or part there of which has become irregular. In Clause 2.1.2.VI of Exhibits D2 it is stated that A non-performing asset (NPA) is defined as a loan / Advance where “Any amount to be received remains over due for a period more than 90 days in respect of other accounts”. Thus Exhibit D2 reveals that the opposite party is duty bound to implement the guidelines and directions in the circulars issued by RBI and the head office of Opposite party Bank based on the RBI circulars. Hence we are of the opinion that the act of sending notice to the complainant can no way be termed as deficiency in service. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 15th day of June 2010. K.Vijayakumaran : Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha : Sd/- R.Vijayakumar : Sd/- // Forwarded by Order / / Senior Superintendent (5) INDEX List of witness for complainant PW1 - Freddy List of documents for complainant P1 - Receipts (11 Nos.) P2 - notices (2 in nos.) List of witness for opposite party DW1 - Benjamin Antony List of documents for opposite party D1 - Statement of Accounts D2 - Asset classification, provisioning returns | 
